Leaked Phenom II X6 1090T BE Benchmarks

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
There are a boatload of AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE benchmarks posted in the forums over at Coolaler. Now, while the term “boatload” is technically accurate, there are only a few benchmarks that you will actually recognize. At least they kinda give you an idea how the 3.2GHz CPU performs.
 
I saw these benchmarks earlier today. While the Phenom six-cores aren't going to beat Intel's latest and greatest, they certainly look like they'll be solid, decent CPUs, and a bargain for the price. I'm looking forward to them.
 
I think I'd better wait for the [H] reviews before getting too excited.
 
Any CPU benchmark gurus can make some sense of those results?

Are we talking about a winner here?
 
Steve said:
There are a boatload of AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE benchmarks posted in the forums over at Coolaler. Now, while the term “boatload” is technically accurate, there are only a few benchmarks that you will actually recognize. At least they kinda give you an idea how the 3.2GHz CPU performs.
Click to expand...

So what do those benchmarks actually mean in english? ;)
 
Im impressed with them but I think I will wait for the i9 later this year or next.
Maybe next year I will upgrade.
 
AMD cpu's won't really get much better clock for clock, core for core, until they finally get 'Bulldozer' released in the future :/

Otherwise we are stuck with Phenom II cores.
 
SpeedyVV said:
Any CPU benchmark gurus can make some sense of those results?

Are we talking about a winner here?
Click to expand...

sort of

it looks like its matching the i7 950 or the 940 (both of which sell around $550) at a possible cheaper pricepoint ($420) but loses at some other benchmarks

if thats true then it's nice as hell
but i'd wait for more reviews cuz you never know
 
griff30 said:
Im impressed with them but I think I will wait for the i9 later this year or next.
Maybe next year I will upgrade.
Click to expand...

Same here. I am waiting for them to also nail down SATA 3.0 with SSDs and the final spec for PCIe 3.0 is next month which will double the bandwidth. So a lot of changes this year and next more then we have had in a long time, example USB 3.0 SATA 3.0 and now PCIe 3.0 and socket changes coming next year it's too early to build a new PC IMO since we have a lot of changes coming and here already. Not saying wait forever just this time for all the changes to get ironed out.
 
psychoticdream said:
sort of

it looks like its matching the i7 950 or the 940 (both of which sell around $550) at a possible cheaper pricepoint ($420) but loses at some other benchmarks

if thats true then it's nice as hell
but i'd wait for more reviews cuz you never know
Click to expand...

you're still comparing hex-core to quads...just to "keep up"....excuse me if i think thats a fail...

granted the pricepoints are nice, but as a long term AMD fan (used everything from the original Thunderbird up to my now aging/dying 939 x2 system) i've voted with my wallet to the i7 line...a 920 and 6gigs for a not too terrible price and some clocking up and you're solid for another 18 months at the minimum...you get the upgrade itch you can still toss a 1366 hex-core upgrade in it for cheap(er) now that intel announced a socket change late 2011...

bulldozer better live up to its name and truly roll over intel otherwise its gonna be awhile before i use the underdog again.
 
B1zz said:
you're still comparing hex-core to quads...just to "keep up"....excuse me if i think thats a fail...

granted the pricepoints are nice, but as a long term AMD fan (used everything from the original Thunderbird up to my now aging/dying 939 x2 system) i've voted with my wallet to the i7 line...a 920 and 6gigs for a not too terrible price and some clocking up and you're solid for another 18 months at the minimum...you get the upgrade itch you can still toss a 1366 hex-core upgrade in it for cheap(er) now that intel announced a socket change late 2011...

bulldozer better live up to its name and truly roll over intel otherwise its gonna be awhile before i use the underdog again.
Click to expand...

you are right, but thats the only best match we can do at the moment in terms of performance but its not a good comparison hence why i said we need more reviews to come out
the only good thing so far is the pricepoint

when more intels 6 cores come out do you really think they'll be at this price point i doubt it.
even with this amd chip out intel still has the performace crown for a while longer, and like you mentioned if the upcoming series does live up to its name amd will have a much longer road to catch up
 
AMD REALLY needs to keep the price point down when it launches... It seems to have good performance but need to keep well under $400 to be respectable... hopefully closer to $300.
 
I can read the chinese just fine but I don't know what to make of the benches. Seems like the hex only beats the core 2 quad, but not even close to the new Intel i's.

Hmmm
 
From this:
http://item.slide.com/r/1/263/i/MKIvokkY6j-FafMvzRTMpSS9yUKo_w25/

It looks like its close to a Core i7 quad clock for clock.

So a 3.2Ghz X6 (6-core chip) will be close around the same performance as a 3.2Ghz Core i7 (4-core chip).

So Intel's 6-core chip which is currently only an extreme part will trounce the X6 in everything but price!!

Thats ashamed for our wallets, and AMD's bottom line, and good for Intel's bottom line.... as can be seen by their announcement today of quadripling their net income, while AMD is still struggling to make a profit.
 
C-rizzle said:
From this:
http://item.slide.com/r/1/263/i/MKIvokkY6j-FafMvzRTMpSS9yUKo_w25/

It looks like its close to a Core i7 quad clock for clock.

So a 3.2Ghz X6 (6-core chip) will be close around the same performance as a 3.2Ghz Core i7 (4-core chip).

So Intel's 6-core chip which is currently only an extreme part will trounce the X6 in everything but price!!

Thats ashamed for our wallets, and AMD's bottom line, and good for Intel's bottom line.... as can be seen by their announcement today of quadripling their net income, while AMD is still struggling to make a profit.
Click to expand...

So if it performs close to an i7 in these synthetic benchmarks, that means gaming performance is going to be worse right? Unless games can make use of the 2 extra cores? Rarely see that kindof usage on my 920, I think only during bad company 2 loading times I see 100% across all cores for maybe 2 seconds (which seems to be responsible for my ridiculously fast load times).
 
Here's a snippet of what the reported costs are:

The Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition will sell for $295. The processor operates at 3.2GHz and has a 9MB cache. The other processor with a price so far is the Phenom II X6 1055T with a price of $199.
Click to expand...

If this price holds true, then we indeed have a real winner here.
 
I should add to this right now.

Guru3D is reporting that X6 1090T Black Edition, SKU code HDT90ZFBGRBOX is roughly 300 USD. non BE edition is listed at 299 USD and the BE edition at 309 USD.
 
okay the 1090T isn't the name of the new X4(my bad), it is the same 1090T X6, but showing in same benchmarks as X4 when at 4.2. The top half of the benchmarks state [email protected], and the bottom half state [email protected].
A little confused how it dropped to 4cores with the O/C.
 
I find the Intels beat the Phenoms in synthetic useless benchmarks and specialized Intel compiled rendering and memory speeds, and in everything else the better value for money you get with Phenoms start to shine. Wish other sites would go away from synthetic, might as well look at the tech specs and go "yes it looks faster on paper, it wins. Costs $999 but who gives, we're only reviewing it without taking the price into consideration".
 
I downloaded the benchmark and ran mine at the normal day to day speed I run at (i7 @3.6) and got 25417 mark...I am wondering what gives other than they underclocked the AMD chip? I see the MHz speed of their test was like 800 MHz...so what gives?
 
Yea looking at that SuperPi 1M result kinda made me laugh a little. It took that big bad 6 core cpu 21 seconds but my little dual core Intel does it in 15sec. Single thread FTW! :p
 
6 cores probably won;t see any gains in today's games but will future proof you for the next few years. I fail to see the value of a 6 core cpu over a quad core intel chip with hyper-threading that is faster. AMD really cannot compete with Inte;'s core i7 line and won;t be able to compete in the high end desktop until 2011. If the price of AMD's 6 core CPU's are low it may create some competition. Lets see real world benchmarks in games and real application to see where the real meat is. :p
 
raoulvaz said:
So if it performs close to an i7 in these synthetic benchmarks, that means gaming performance is going to be worse right? Unless games can make use of the 2 extra cores? Rarely see that kindof usage on my 920, I think only during bad company 2 loading times I see 100% across all cores for maybe 2 seconds (which seems to be responsible for my ridiculously fast load times).
Click to expand...

I think it would make it overall smoother if you were to peg the cores often enough. Probably won't be an issue for a while considering BC2 doesn't even cause my Athlon II Quad 2.8Ghz to break a sweat... and that game makes good use of multithreading.

Where AMD is really shining is price compared to equivalent performance parts... but even then, 6core seems a little overkill for power user and gaming. Still, gotta give AMD credit for breaking the sub-$100 mark for quadcores.
 
They are a winner.

Even though in single thread it doesnt look like turbo works, and it holds ground overall really well.

Not vs 980X ofc!
 
Taken from a post @ XS. I'd post a picture but I dont know if I can.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit.

i7 960 @ 4.2ghz 4 core / 8 threads = 7.20
X6 1050t @ 4.2ghz 6 core / 6 threads = 7.38

It looks like it can keep it's paces with i7 in multi-threaded applications. I interested to see how it compares to i7 in less threaded apps, and games. I'm excited to some "official" reviews.
 
Reimu said:
Here's a snippet of what the reported costs are:

If this price holds true, then we indeed have a real winner here.
Click to expand...

As a long-time AMD builder, I have to question the ultimate value at this point... I just built a new system around an i7-930 and a cheap-ass Hyper 212+ cooler.

The 212+ cost less than $30 and the i7-930 was $199 at Microcenter (the only thing of cultural value in the Twin Cities :)

This thing OCs to 3.8 GHz in 5 minutes without requiring a boost to any system voltage, and it passed Prime95 and LinX torture tests without incident (4.1 GHz was also stable, but required a voltage bump, which I wanted to avoid because this is a 24/7 production machine).

I'm thinking that AMD needs to drop the price to $169 or $199 to really get traction.

The real torture for all of us is that we NEED AMD to hang in there to keep pressure on Intel, which would gladly sell us $1500-$2500 i7/i9 procs if there were no viable competition...
 
How is a top of the line AMD part that may be "on par" with a mid-level Core I7 with two less cores at stock clocks a "winner"??

Ok, well I guess it's all in how well it handled that chinese script.

I want to see something from AMD that actually trades blows with Top end Intel offerings. Just one High end enthusiast part for $100 less than Intel's MSRP would do it. C'mon 6 cores and it still can't beat a 965 that's two years old now??

Let the fanboy hate begin....
 
TheBlueChanell said:
Taken from a post @ XS. I'd post a picture but I dont know if I can.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit.

i7 960 @ 4.2ghz 4 core / 8 threads = 7.20
X6 1050t @ 4.2ghz 6 core / 6 threads = 7.38

It looks like it can keep it's paces with i7 in multi-threaded applications. I interested to see how it compares to i7 in less threaded apps, and games. I'm excited to some "official" reviews.
Click to expand...

That isn't 6 core / 6 threads @ 4.2 GHz, it's 4 core / 4 threads that is nearly keeping up with a 4 core / 8 thread Intel processor.

Also for the previous two posters go read the thread and you'll discover that the price is indeed $200 and $300 for the unlocked BE. Sounds like they priced them exactly where your whining wanted it. Maybe we need less whining and more reading.
 
bah I just wish they had done some x264 benches so we could see some real world tests that real end users would use. Might as well wait for the [H] bench. Hope they do some 720p and 1080p x264 comparisons!
 
I'm waiting for the apples-to-apples from HardOCP. I really don't trust anyone else. (Well, maybe Maximum PC, but they cover too much ground and are too slow.)

Outright performance is different from performance/value (bang vs bang for buck). Only two benchmarks for this seem applicable: media rendering/authoring and games...as long as these benchmarks take full advantage of the features available on the device, and aren't developed (or monetarily influenced) by the device manufacturers.

As a consumer, I'll take bang for buck any day of the week. That's why I am still running two four-core Intel machines, with an 8800GT and a 9800GT. They do everything I need them to do, and the parts were bought on sale. While the jury's still out on Fermi, I'll wait for it to mature. When it comes to processors, well, nothing would please me more than increasing my performance substantially without decreasing my bank account considerably.

Besides, I'm still playing Diablo II, and rendering video and audio unattended...so I am fine for now. ;)
 
funkydmunky said:
Why? And is disabling 2 cores an option?
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think this might do it: open msconfig, then go to the Boot tab, then hit Advanced Options, then check "number of processors" and select the number you wish to boot up with.

This could be for something else entirely, so don't take my word for it.
 
snowden said:
That isn't 6 core / 6 threads @ 4.2 GHz, it's 4 core / 4 threads that is nearly keeping up with a 4 core / 8 thread Intel processor.

Also for the previous two posters go read the thread and you'll discover that the price is indeed $200 and $300 for the unlocked BE. Sounds like they priced them exactly where your whining wanted it. Maybe we need less whining and more reading.
Click to expand...

I've known the 1050T was gonna be $200 and the 1090T was gonna be $300 for a long while. Great price points. The results I'm referring to did indeed use a true 6 core / 6 thread X6. It was a 1050T @ 4.2ghz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top